Re: [PATCH] conditionalize some boring buffer_head checks

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>===== fs/buffer.c 1.237 vs edited =====
>>--- 1.237/fs/buffer.c	Wed Apr 14 03:18:09 2004
>>+++ edited/fs/buffer.c	Wed Apr 14 03:39:15 2004
>>@@ -2688,6 +2688,7 @@
>> {
>> 	struct bio *bio;
>> 
>>+#ifdef BH_DEBUG
>> 	BUG_ON(!buffer_locked(bh));
>> 	BUG_ON(!buffer_mapped(bh));
>> 	BUG_ON(!bh->b_end_io);
> 
> 
> The last one will be 'caught' at the other end of io completion, so I
> guess that could be killed (even though you already lost the context of
> the error, then). The first two are buffer state errors, I think those
> should be kept unconditionally.
> 
> 
>>@@ -2698,6 +2699,7 @@
>> 		buffer_error();
>> 	if (rw == READ && buffer_dirty(bh))
>> 		buffer_error();
>>+#endif
> 
> 
> I'm fine with killing the buffer_error(), maybe
> 
> 	if (rw == WRITE && !buffer_uptodate(bh))
> 		buffer_error();
> 
> should be kept though.


Well, all of these are buffer state (and programmer) errors...

	Jeff